FAMILY Act

Reintroducing the FAMILY Act: Leave that works for working families

lborkowski — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 13:04:27 +0000

Reintroducing the FAMILY Act: Leave that works for working families

Twenty-four years ago, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. The FMLA has allowed millions of workers to take time off work to care for new children and seriously ill family members, but it has several shortcomings and was only intended to be a first step. But over the past 24 years, US policy has stagnated while most of the rest of the world has demonstrated how well common-sense paid leave policies can function. Today, members of Congress have re-introduced legislation that would help us catch up.

The FMLA’s two most important shortcomings are allowing only unpaid leave and not applying to all workers. The act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of leave without pay to deal with their own serious medical condition or that of a family member and return to their jobs afterwards. But because the leave is unpaid, many workers can’t afford to take it. Also, the benefits are only available to workers of employers with 50 or more employees, and only when the worker has logged at least 1,250 hours with that employer over the past year. This means new hires and many part-time workers — around 40% of all US workers — are ineligible for FMLA leave.

Back in 2013, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, or FAMILY Act, to address these shortcomings. It would create a “social insurance” system funded by a payroll tax (two-tenths of one percent of workers’ wages, or $1.50 per week for the average worker) and administered by the Social Security Administration. Eligible employees could receive 66% of their monthly wages, up to a capped amount, for up to 12 weeks while dealing with their own serious health conditions, bonding with a new birth or adopted child, or caring for a family member (including a domestic partner) with a serious health condition. Today, the FAMILY Act has been reintroduced, giving members of Congress a chance to support the kind of policy with broad public support that cuts across party lines. Senator Gillibrand led a group of 27 Senators supporting the Act, and Representative DeLauro was joined by 113 House cospsonsors.

The National Partnership for Women and Families has provided a checklist for paid leave proposals. They call for policies that meet the following criteria:

Affordable: Cost-effective for workers, employers, and the government
Inclusive: Accessible to all working people and reflecting a modern definition of “family”
Substantial: Including 12 weeks of leave or more
Comprehensive: Covering equally the full range of personal medical and family caregiving needs
Secure: No fear of retaliation or adverse consequences for taking leave

The FAMILY Act meets these criteria. It also has support from the US public health community. The American Public Health Association is one of nearly 50 groups signing a letter supporting the FAMILY Act of 2017. “Ensuring access to paid family and medical leave is vital to strengthening the well-being of our workers and their families, especially low-income workers who can least afford to take unpaid time away from work to recover from a serious illness or care for a seriously ill family member get sick,” said APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin, MD.

In 2013, APHA adopted a policy statement calling on the US Congress to pass legislation "making paid medical and family-caregiving leave available to all workers regardless of employer size or sector." The statement notes:

The failure of the United States to ensure paid sick and family leave for all US workers harms individual workers and the public’s health. Low-income families disproportionately bear the economic hardship and negative health impacts of this policy failure.

While the federal government's inaction on paid medical and family leave has been disappointing for more than two decades, some states have stepped up to offer paid leave. California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have all set up successful social insurance systems that partially replace workers’ salaries when they take time off work to care for a new child or family member with a serious health condition, or to address their own disabling condition. (For more details, see the "State Initiatives" section of this paper from the Institute for Women's Policy Research.) Last year, New York and the District of Columbia passed laws establishing paid family and medical leave programs that will start paying benefits in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

Workers shouldn't have to choose between their paychecks and the health of their families. The FAMILY Act can reduce inequality and improve public health. It seems like something that should get support from members of Congress who describe themselves as "pro-family."

lborkowski Tue, 02/07/2017 - 08:04

Tags

paid leave

FAMILY Act

FMLA

paid family leave

parental leave

paid leave

New York state approves country's most generous paid family leave law

lborkowski — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:00:44 +0000

New York state approves country's most generous paid family leave law

New York State's new budget deal includes a paid-leave program that will offer the most paid leave in the nation once it's fully implemented in 2021. California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have already established programs that partially replace workers' salaries when they take time off work to care for a new child or family member with a serious health condition, or to address their own disabling condition. These programs allow for a maximum of four weeks (Rhode Island) or six weeks (California and New Jersey) for family care; New York will allow for up to 12 weeks.

Like the other states, New York will fund the program through payroll taxes, building on their existing system for temporary disability insurance. It will cover both full- and part-time employees, including those working for small businesses, who've been employed for at least six months. It will also offer job protection, so workers can be assured of being able to return to work once their leave has ended. At New York's The Cut, Rebecca Traister explains the law's phase-in and maximum benefits:

Expectant parents shouldn’t get too excited yet; paid leave won’t kick in until January 1, 2018, and then it will be gradually phased in. In 2018, employees will be eligible for up to 8 weeks of leave a year, followed by up to 10 weeks in 2019 and 2020, then up to 12 weeks starting in 2021. Initially, it will cover just 50 percent of a worker’s average pay. Over four years, it will rise and eventually replace 67 percent of a worker’s average pay. The total amount is capped at two-thirds of the state’s average weekly wage, which in 2014 was $1,266.44. For high-salaried New Yorkers, a weekly max of $848 will mean a big temporary pay cut, yet it’s better than what the state currently mandates, which is nothing.

Many of us are fortunate to receive paid leave from our employers, but in most states these are still optional benefits. At the federal level, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks -- but about 40% of the workforce isn't eligible for leave under the FMLA, and many of those who are eligible can't afford the unpaid time off. (Ineligible workers include those working fewer than 25 hours per week with an employer, workers at businesses with fewer than 50 employees, and those who want to care for a family member who doesn’t meet the official “family” designation.) Sharon Lerner reported for In These Times that nearly one in four US women return to work within two weeks of having a child, because so many women can't afford to take more time off work to recover their own health and care for their newborns.

When workers can't afford to take time off work to heal, tend to a sick family member, or bond with a new child, public health suffers (see Kim's recent post for some of the latest research documenting this). That's why the American Public Health Association has called on Congress to pass legislation to make paid medical and family leave available to all workers. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Rose DeLauro introduced the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMILY) Act in 2013 and reintroduced it in 2015 to create a national payroll tax-funded insurance system for paid leave. Our current Congress doesn't seem appropriately receptive, which is why more states keep taking matters into their own hands. Slate's Christina Cauterucci reports:

Debates around paid family leave are currently occuring in the Massachusetts and Connecticut state legislatures. The latter is considering a bill that didn’t make it to a vote in 2015; it would fund 12 weeks of full pay up to $52,000 through a payroll tax. In Massachusetts, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor Chris Lu has advocated for pending bills that would offer 12 weeks of family leave and 26 weeks of disability leave at partial pay.

In DC, the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015 would allow District of Columbia workers to take up to 16 weeks of paid leave, at full pay for those making up to $52,000 annually.

I applaud New York for taking this important step to improve public health, and hope we'll continue seeing more and more workers gain access to paid family and medical leave.

P.S. I wrote this post over the weekend, and then on Tuesday San Francisco's Board of Supervisors approved six weeks of fully paid parental leave. It will require employers to pay the 45% of employees' salaries not covered by the state's paid-leave system. The measure still has to undergo a second vote and be signed by the Mayor.

lborkowski Thu, 04/07/2016 - 05:00

Tags

Business-school professors call for paid family and medical leave

lborkowski — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:07:44 +0000

Business-school professors call for paid family and medical leave

Last week, 203 business-school faculty members from 88 institutions across the US wrote an open letter to members of Congress stating, "It is time to ensure that the entire United States workforce has access to paid family and medical leave." The signatories urge our legislators to consider the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (FAMILY Act) as one solution. This bill, which I wrote about here when it was first introduced, would use a payroll tax of two-tenths of one percent to fund a "social insurance" system that would allow all workers to take up to 12 partially paid weeks off work to deal with a serious health condition or care for a seriously ill family member or new child.

As the business-school professors note, the FAMILY Act builds on the lessons of California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, which have all created insurance arrangements for paid family leave. They write:

California’s program, in place for more than a decade, is the most studied. In California, workers have filed approximately 1.7 million leave claims since the state implemented its family leave insurance program in 2004.16 California families have experienced positive economic and health effects. Parents who use the California paid family leave program are much more likely than those who do not to report that leave has a positive effect on their ability to care for their new children and arrange child care. Newborns whose mothers take at least 12 weeks of paid leave are more likely to be breastfed, receive medical checkups and get critical immunizations. A recent review of international literature concludes that there are benefits for maternal health when fathers take paid leave, including a reduction in maternal illness and depression and an increase in well-being. In California, the number of fathers filing leave claims increased by more than 400 percent between 2005 and 2013, as the state’s program became better established and known.

Experiences of businesses in California and New Jersey also show positive impacts and lay bare the claims of business opponents. The vast majority of California employers report seeing a positive impact on employee productivity, profitability and performance, or no effect. Even the Society for Human Resource Management, one of the chief opponents of paid family leave in California, issued a report finding that the law had created “relatively few” new burdens for employers and that employers’ concerns about the program “have so far not been realized.” Similarly, in a report prepared on behalf of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, both small and large businesses said they had adjusted easily to the state’s family leave insurance law and experienced no effects on business profitability, performance or employee productivity. Another survey of New Jersey employers found that most employers did not experience negative effects on profitability or increased paperwork, and no employers were aware of a single instance of the program being abused.

And it's not just that the existing paid family leave programs aren't hurting business. Paid leave can actually improve businesses' bottom lines, the letter explains:

Experiences at companies like Google and Ernst & Young show clear relationships between paid leave and retention. The accounting firm KPMG estimates that businesses worldwide could save up to $19 billion annually in recruiting and training costs by offering 16 weeks of fully paid maternity leave. Higher retention rates mean saved separation costs, unemployment insurance savings, lower temporary staffing costs, fewer costs associated with searching for and interviewing new workers, and training costs for new workers. Higher retention rates also reduce the indirect costs that can arise from lost productivity leading up to and after employee separations, diminished output as new workers ramp up, reduced morale and lost institutional knowledge. Paid leave reduces employee turnover and workers who cover for employees on leave get a chance to take on new responsibilities and further their development.

The letter conveys a sense of urgency about the need to correct a status quo that is unworkable for individuals and the economy as a whole. In a Harvard Business Review piece about the letter, lead signatory Stew Friedman of the Wharton School writes:

The effects ripple throughout our communities. Businesses suffer when employees have low morale and reduced productivity due to changes at home, such as having a baby or a sick loved one to care for. And I see the impact in the classroom, when students express concern that workplace challenges will thwart their family and career ambitions. In a longitudinal study of Wharton’s graduating classes of 1992 and 2012, we found the percentage of those planning to have or adopt children fell from 79 to 42% over two decades. This baby bust was driven in part by fears of not having sufficient support to make life as a parent work.

For many years, advocates for public health, women, and families have been calling for paid sick, medical, and family leave. Many business leaders have shared in this call (some of them at last year's White House Summit on Working Families), but I don't recall having seen such a high-profile call from business schools. Their letter makes it clear that there's an economic, as well as a public-health, case for expanding paid medical and family leave to all US workers.

lborkowski Mon, 09/21/2015 - 06:07

Tags

Returning to work two weeks after giving birth

lborkowski — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 07:36:34 +0000

Returning to work two weeks after giving birth

Last week, an In These Times piece by Sharon Lerner presented an alarming statistics: Nearly one in four employed US mothers return to work within two weeks after giving birth. In "The Real War on Families: Why the U.S. Needs Paid Leave Now," Lerner reports that an Abt Associates analysis of survey data for In These Times found that nearly 12% of women took off a week or less, while another 11% took off for between one and two weeks. Women with less education and lower incomes are especially likely to have to return to work soon after a new baby's arrival. Lerner shares the stories of several women whose financial situations forced them back to work shortly after giving birth:

What’s it like to be back on the job in the first weeks after having a baby?

For Natasha Long, who was back three weeks after her third child, Jayden, was born in 2012, the worst part was missing out on bonding time with her son.

Long, who was 29 at the time, was determined to make sure Jayden got breast milk. But the factory where she worked, ACCO Office Supplies in Booneville, Mississippi, didn’t have a lactation room. So when she was on breaks, she had to run out to her truck. She sat in the cab, worried that someone might see her, and pumped, while tears rolled down her face and over the plastic suction cups attached to her breasts.

Long cried because she wanted to be holding her baby rather than sitting in the parking lot of a factory in her old Yukon Denali. But exhaustion clearly also played a role in her emotional state. Her job was simple—to place stickers with the company logo on the bottom right-hand corner of plastic binders and then box up the binders. But the shifts were long—from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.—and she put in four or five a week. Because the factory was an hour’s drive from her home in Okalona, Mississippi, Long had only 10 hours left in the day to do everything else, including tend to her three children, spend time with Jayden’s father, and sleep. By the time she got back in the evening, her children, who were being looked after by her father during the day, were on their way to bed. To pump breast milk before leaving for work, she had to get up at 4 a.m.

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are now required to provide breaks and a space other than a bathroom for nursing mothers to express breast milk, although employers with fewer than 50 employees can be exempted if providing such a space is a hardship. But in the US, no law requires that workers have access to paid time off during the first months following a child's birth. This takes a toll on mothers of newborns, on the infants themselves, and on families as a whole.

Paid family leave is good for public health, as the American Public Health Association made clear in 2013 when it adopted a policy statement calling for all employees to be able to accrue and use paid sick, medical, and family leave. This is probably why every other industrialized nation in the world offers paid leave to parents of newborns.

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have all created payroll tax-funded social insurance systems to allow workers to receive a portion of their pay while on leave caring for a new child or a family member with a serious health condition. At the federal level, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Rosa DeLauro have introduced the FAMILY Act (and re-introduced it in 2015), which would create a similar social insurance system to allow employees to receive up to 66% of their monthly wages for up to 12 weeks while caring for new babies or other family members.

It's frustrating to see proposals like the FAMILY Act stalled while Congressional Republicans work to eliminate Title X funding for family planning services and other aspects of reproductive health. The message seems to be that the majority of the US Congress wants to make it harder for low-income women to control the timing of their pregnancies, even though most won't be able to afford to take enough time off to bond with and care for their babies.

lborkowski Mon, 08/24/2015 - 03:36

Tags

Appreciating US mothers: Paid parental leave

lborkowski — Mon, 12 May 2014 06:00:40 +0000

Appreciating US mothers: Paid parental leave

Most of us probably expressed some appreciation yesterday for our mothers. Despite the brunches, flower sales, and media attention lavished on moms each Mother's Day, though, US policy doesn't express as much appreciation for mothers (or fathers) as it should. Jennifer Senior shared this graphic on Twitter:

When Australia passed a new parental leave law in 2010, the US became the only industrialized nation that does not provide paid leave to mothers of newborns. As Senior pointed out in her tweet, Pakistan is more progressive than the US in this regard (mothers there get 12 weeks of paid maternity leave). Ideally, paid parental leave would be available to both mothers and fathers; this is the case in more than 50 out of 178 nations, notes Amanda Peterson Beadle at ThinkProgress.

Some US employers do offer paid maternity or parental leave; analysis of 2006-2008 Census data found that fewer than half of women who were working during the pregnancies of their first births used paid leave following those births. For those without sufficient paid-leave benefits, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows new parents (mothers and fathers of new birth, adopted, or foster children) up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. FMLA leave is only an option for around 60% of the US workforce, though, because it's only available to employees who've worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months (e.g., 24 hours per week) for employers with 50 or more employees. The fact that FMLA leave is unpaid also means that many of those who are entitled to its benefits simply can't afford to take off the allowed time.

In a policy statement urging US lawmakers to make paid sick, medical, and family leave broadly available to US workers, the American Public Health Association summarizes some of the many public-health benefits of maternity leave (which is more widely studied than non-gender-specific parental leave):

Maternity leave is one of the most studied forms of employment leave, and, depending on its duration, it is associated with a variety of public health benefits. These benefits include prolonged gestation and reductions in cesarean deliveries, more well-baby visits, decreased infant mortality, longer periods of breastfeeding, and improved mental health of new mothers. In some studies, these positive effects are identified only when the maternity leave is paid.

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have all established social insurance systems that use payroll-tax funds to replace a portion of workers’ salaries for several weeks when they miss work to care for new children or seriously ill family members. And the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, or FAMILY Act, introduced into the US Congress by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) in December, would create a similar system covering the whole nation. I summarized the Act's provisions when it was introduced:

A new office within the Social Security Administration would administer the system, which would be funded by a payroll tax (two-tenths of one percent of workers’ wages, or $1.50 per week for the average worker). Eligible employees could receive 66% of their monthly wages, up to a capped amount, for up to 12 weeks while dealing with their own serious health conditions, bonding with a new birth or adopted child, or caring for a family member (including a domestic partner) with a serious health condition.

... The FAMILY Act would address major gaps left by the FMLA. Family and medical leave would be paid, and it would be available to workers regardless of whether they work full-time or part-time, how long they’ve worked for their current employer, and how large their employer is. Anyone who pays into Social Security and is eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits would be able to receive partial salary replacement under the FAMILY Act.

If the FAMILY Act becomes law, it will help demonstrate that the US truly does value the important work parents do.

lborkowski Mon, 05/12/2014 - 02:00

Tags

Leave Policies

Occupational Health & Safety

Listening to my co-workers describe the complicated schemes they had to use to both get at least some maternity leave and still get to keep their health insurance is just despressing. One woman talked about how great her grad school advisor was that he "let" her take more than a week of maternity leave.

This is nothing more or less than the law of supply and demand applied to the value of human life. If you don't like it, you're a socialist. Welcome aboard.

When I was a kid and global population was half of what it is today, it was commonly said that "you can't put a price on a human life." How very quaint that sounds today...

What's shocking is to see Pakistan, land of the Taliban and polio, ahead of the USA. That is just downright disgraceful.

Very sad indeed. FMLA doesn't even offer the job protection that it should since so many mothers are fired or forced to quit thier jobs while pregnant . Job loss during pregnancy = losing FMLA protection at your new job since you haven't been there for a year. Then you lose that job if your out longer than the 6 week postpartum disability you receive for recovering from childbirth. If children are our future then why don't we take care of mothers( really parents of all kinds) for the first year so they can nurture their children before returning to the workforce? A system like Canada's or France's would be ideal. But...i don't see that happening anytime soon. Its too"socialist". At least CA offers 6 weeks paid family leave annually to bond with a baby or deal with a loved ones illness. Baby steps

In SOTU, Obama calls for higher wages and better leave policies

lborkowski — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:49:34 +0000

In SOTU, Obama calls for higher wages and better leave policies

In last night's State of the Union speech, President Obama addressed several ways to "make sure our economy honors the dignity of work, and hard work pays off for every single American." Here's what he said about wage increases:

To every mayor, governor, state legislator in America, I say, you don't have to wait for Congress to act; Americans will support you if you take this on. And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example. Profitable corporations like Costco see higher wages as the smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover. We should too. In the coming weeks I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour because if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty.

Of course, to reach millions more, Congress does need to get on board. Today the federal minimum wage is worth about twenty percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. And Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It's easy to remember: 10.10. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It does not involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say yes. Give America a raise. Give 'em a raise.

As Kim Krisberg reported here last week, several states and the District of Columbia have recently passed bills raising their minimum wages, and advocates are campaigning for increases in several other states. Wonkblog's Brad Plumer has the details on Obama's proposal to raise wages for federal-contract workers and its likely impact; he notes that it will only affect future contracts, not existing ones, so workers won't see an immediate pay increase. By some estimates, he writes, around 200,000 contracted workers could eventually benefit.

Also on the topic of low pay, Obama noted that women still get paid only 77% of what men do, and stated, "Women deserve equal pay for equal work." He then highlighted the ways inadequate medical- and family-leave policies harm women workers:

You know, she deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship. And you know what, a father does too. It is time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a "Mad Men" episode. This year let's all come together, Congress, the White House, businesses from Wall Street to Main Street, to give every woman the opportunity she deserves, because I believe when women succeed, America succeeds.

On sick and family leave, too, local and state governments have not waited for Congress to address the problem. Just this week, Newark, New Jersey's City Council approved a paid-sick-leave ordinance. Connecticut, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Jersey City have all passed laws requiring employers to let workers earn paid sick leave. Several statewide campaigns for paid sick days are also underway.

Paid sick days, as well as longer-term leave for medical conditions requiring more than a couple of days off work, aren't just good for the individual workers who might otherwise have to choose between healthy recuperation and pay. They're also good for public health. When people are able to stay home from work to recover from an illness, or to care for a child who might otherwise be sent to school or day care while sick, the rest of us have a lower risk of catching diseases from them. At its most recent annual meeting, the American Public Health Association adopted a policy statement urging Congressional action -- or, in its absence, state and local action -- to expand US workers' access to paid sick days and paid medical and family leave.

Congress could certainly take action to address inadequate leave policies. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Rosa DeLauro reintroduced the Healthy Families Act, which would allow workers to earn paid sick leave. Last month, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, or FAMILY Act, which would alleviate some of the difficulties workers face in addressing their own or a loved one's health problem. The FAMILY Act would create a social insurance system akin to those operating in California and New Jersey (and soon to be operating in Rhode Island). With funds from a small payroll tax ($1.50 per week from the average worker), it would replace up to two-thirds of a worker's pay when she or he needs to take time off to deal with a serious health condition, bond with a new child, or care for a family member with a serious medical problem. Workers would be able to take up to 12 weeks of partially paid leave a year.

If Congress doesn't act on these minimum-wage and paid-leave bills, I expect we'll keep seeing more cities and states pass their own legislation to address these issues. I've been delighted to see my own city of Washington, DC raise our minimum wage and require employers to offer paid sick days. Seeing such laws implemented on a smaller scale can demonstrate feasibility to national lawmakers; for instance, California's successful social insurance system for paid medical and family leave bolsters the case for passing the FAMILY Act.

At some point, though, it only makes sense for Congress to act, instead of waiting for each state to design its own slightly different system to assure that low-wage workers can earn a decent living and take time off when they're sick. National action on the minimum wage and on paid sick, medical, and family leave would help us achieve the dream President Obama gave voice to in his address: building a country in which "opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us."

lborkowski Wed, 01/29/2014 - 07:49

Tags

Leave Policies

Occupational Health & Safety

paid medical and family leave

paid sick days

paid leave

FAMILY Act would reduce pressure on workers to choose between their jobs and their families’ health

lborkowski — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:34:29 +0000

FAMILY Act would reduce pressure on workers to choose between their jobs and their families’ health

Today, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, or FAMILY Act, federal legislation to create a "social insurance" system for paid medical and family leave. A new office within the Social Security Administration would administer the system, which would be funded by a payroll tax (two-tenths of one percent of workers' wages, or $1.50 per week for the average worker). Eligible employees could receive 66% of their monthly wages, up to a capped amount, for up to 12 weeks while dealing with their own serious health conditions, bonding with a new birth or adopted child, or caring for a family member (including a domestic partner) with a serious health condition.

Right now, many workers with serious health conditions, or a child or parent who's seriously ill, must face the difficult choice between going to work in order to keep their pay coming in, or staying home to recover or provide needed care to a family member. In a country that values work and values families, this shouldn't be the case. The FAMILY Act would allow workers to take time off for their families' health without losing their entire income for that time period.

On the 20th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) back in February, health advocates noted that the law, while an important step, falls far short of providing the kind of support the US workforce needs. The FMLA allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with their own serious health condition or that of a loved one, or to care for a new child, without being fired for doing so. Because the leave is unpaid, though, many workers can’t afford to take it. It only applies employers with 50 or more employees, and to workers have been with their employers for at least a year and worked at least 1,250 hours for that employer over the past 12 months, which means new hires and many part-time workers are excluded. As a result, around 40% of US workers are ineligible for FMLA leave.

The FAMILY Act would address major gaps left by the FMLA. Family and medical leave would be paid, and it would be available to workers regardless of whether they work full-time or part-time, how long they’ve worked for their current employer, and how large their employer is. Anyone who pays into Social Security and is eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits would be able to receive partial salary replacement under the FAMILY Act.

Workers would be able to use leave to address their own serious health condition (as defined by the Department of Labor for FMLA purposes) or to care for a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner with a serious health condition. The Act would also allow workers to take leave to care for an injured military family member or deal with exigencies arising from a servicemember’s deployment.

Today, the US is the only industrialized country that doesn’t guarantee workers any paid maternity leave. (Many, but not all, of these industrialized countries also offer paid leave to new fathers, and to parents of either sex who have adopted a child.) Studies have found associations between paid maternity leave and higher rates of well-baby visits, decreased infant mortality, longer periods of breastfeeding, and improved mental health of new mothers – all of which contribute to children's health and development. Children recover from illnesses more quickly with a parent’s care. Medicare patients with family caregivers tend to have shorter hospital stays, and the availability of family caregivers can delay or prevent entry into nursing homes.

In short, paid medical and family leave is good for public health. That’s why the American Public Health Association has endorsed laws that expand access to paid medical and family leave, as well as the FAMILY Act specifically.

Paid family and medical leave are also good for the economy. Liz Ben-Ishai writes about the FAMILY Act at MomsRising.org:

This kind of program would make a huge difference in workers’ lives. Only 11 percent of private sector workers currently have paid family leave, and fewer than forty percent have access to disability insurance for personal medical leave. Under the FAMILY Act, a majority of workers could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that caring for a sick parent or child or welcoming a newborn wouldn’t push them into economic insecurity. Moreover, the program would boost the economy; when workers are secure in their jobs and able to handle life’s inevitable obstacles without fear of income or job loss, they’re more likely to put money back into the economy. That’s money they’ll spend in their communities to help sustain local and national businesses.

Conscientious employers care about their employees, but also have to mind the bottom line. The FAMILY Act makes business sense because employers’ financial contributions to the program are minimal, while the potential benefits for productivity and employee loyalty are great. Cynthia DiBartolo, CEO of Tigress Financial Partners, explains: “Companies can measurably improve their bottom line by transforming a company’s corporate culture into one of a truly caring organization—which basically means, putting the interests of their employees first!” According to DiBartolo, the FAMILY Act “will help businesses to do what’s good for employees and good for the bottom line.” That’s probably why, as polling from Small Business Majority shows, a plurality of small business owners from across the country support a family and medical leave insurance program like the one proposed under FAMILY.

The FAMILY Act builds on the success of state-level family leave insurance programs, like those in California and New Jersey. Rhode Island recently passed a family leave insurance law, as well, and will soon implement the program. The experiences of California and New Jersey further demonstrate the benefits of paid leave for workers, business owners, and the economy. In California, nine out of ten employers report either positive effects or no effect of paid family leave insurance on business operations. And 91 percent of workers in low-wage jobs who used paid leave say it helped them to better care for a new child.

The FAMILY Act can reduce inequality, improve public health, and bolster the US economy. It seems like something all the family-friendly members of Congress should be able to support.

lborkowski Thu, 12/12/2013 - 07:34

Tags

Leave Policies

Occupational Health & Safety

paid leave

FAMILY Act

family and medical leave

FMLA

legislation

paid leave

How to frame this:

"I call on every member of Congress who has ever uttered the words _family values_, to put money where mouths are and vote for this Act."